Or and this is nuts, but the Ottoman Empire was building up the area and urbanization was happening. Nobody got replaced, it was just more people moving in.
i’m not arguing against that, I just don’t buy that Palestinians are natives.
Ottomans in the region were subject to mass migration following the British mandate.
That since they both came in an oppressed the local Arabs of the 1830s (who are in no way ever included in the definition of Palestian?) and took their land that but migration continued so the Israeli pushing of Palestinians off of the land is just a continuation of what both sides did to the definitely never Palestinian Arabs who were there earlier and so it isn’t wrong?
Buddy. There were Arabs there.
only in the spring
and they were replaced by more Arabs, follow along:
Arabs can be both a victim and a perpetrator amongst themselves.
crazy right?
Or and this is nuts, but the Ottoman Empire was building up the area and urbanization was happening. Nobody got replaced, it was just more people moving in.
those are synonyms, or are we all pretending gentrification doesn’t exist again?
Oh no, they built more housing and improved the economy! The horror!
exactly
No. Not exactly. The Israelis have spent decades pushing Palestinians out. They aren’t just moving in.
i’m not arguing against that, I just don’t buy that Palestinians are natives. Ottomans in the region were subject to mass migration following the British mandate.
But the British did it too is a woefully bad argument.
So you’re arguing what exactly?
That since they both came in an oppressed the local Arabs of the 1830s (who are in no way ever included in the definition of Palestian?) and took their land that but migration continued so the Israeli pushing of Palestinians off of the land is just a continuation of what both sides did to the definitely never Palestinian Arabs who were there earlier and so it isn’t wrong?